See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320830877

Production and Quality Evaluation of Honey Loop

Drink Using Locally Sourced Cereals

Article · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 2

3 authors, including:

Oluseye Oladapo Abiona

Osun State University
6 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

quality assessment of composite flour from cocoyam and sweet potato View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oluseye Oladapo Abiona on 03 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 3(10), pp. 458-461 October, 2013
Available online at http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/SJAS
ISSN 2276-7118 © 2013 Scholarly-Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Production and Quality Evaluation of Honey Loop

Drink Using Locally Sourced Cereals
**Akande E.A., *Abiona, O.O. AND **Fabunmi M.A
**Department of Food Science and Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomosho, Nigeria.
*Department of Chemical Sciences, Fac. of Basic and Applied Sciences Osun State University. Osogbo, Nigeria
Accepted 23 October 2013

Work on the production and quality evaluation of honey loop drink using locally sourced raw materials
was reported. This was done in order to explore the utilization potentials of most cereals produced in
Nigeria for beverages as convenience foods. Samples of Honey Loop drinks were produced from three
different local cereals (Millet, maize and sorghum). The cereals were steeped for three days and washed
every 24 hrs before wet milling. The milled cereals were sieved and mix in various proportions from
standard. The samples produced were subjected to various analyses like: proximate, minerals,
microbiological and sensory evaluation using standard methods. The proximate composition showed
the percentage ash, protein, fat, crude fiber and carbohydrate content ranging between (0.17-2.24, 9.75-
13.65, 4.0-6.4, 0.67-2.06 and 77.65-85.07) respectively. The chemical analysis gave (0.31-1.53), total sugar
and (8.2-11.7), total titratable acidity). For sensory evaluation, sample D and E were established as the
best sample but sample D had the highest nutritional value which may be due to the present of high
composition of sorghum in sample D. The results of the microbiological analysis revealed all the
samples having total plate count, coliform count, mould and yeast count to be below the recommended
standard for microbial loads. Since sample D was found to have the highest nutrients composition and
was among the two most acceptable samples (D and E), it can be concluded that honey loop drinks be
produced using the formulation for sample D.

Keywords: Cereals, honey loop, local, production, quality.

INTRODUCTION

Cereals are plants which yield edible grains like; wheat,
rye, rice, corn, barley, oats, maize, millet, sorghum etc.
They belong to the monocotyledonous family, gramineae
or grass family (Potter, 1985). The cereal grains are the
staple food of the world population providing about 75%
total caloric intakes and 67% of their total protein intake.
Grains are eaten in many ways: sometimes as pastes,
roasts porridges and pottages or other preparation of the
seeds. More often, they are milled and converted into
flour, starch bran, oil, breakfast, dinner cakes, honey
loops or generally beverages (Varnam, 1994; Ngoddy
and Ihekonroye, 1985). Honey loops is a breakfast cereal
made by Kellogg's and sold in Sweden, Belgium,
Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, UK, India, Spain, Brazil,
**Corresponding author. E-mail: felemma@yahoo.com
Argentina and Chile. The mascot of Honey Loops is a
honeybee called Loopy (Jone, 2001). The cereal was
originally marketed as honey nut loops. However, the Nut
has since been dropped from the name in 1998. It is
made from four nutritious (wheat, barley, oat and rye) and
every serving gives children a third of their daily needs of
no less than six B vitamins which help to convert the food
into energy and these serving also provide 20% of their
daily iron needs, which is a vital help in mental
development (Wikipedia, 2008). Cereals can be local
(indigenous) or foreign (exotic). Honey loop is usually
produced in countries far from Nigeria and so they are
produced from cereals which are foreign. Using local
indigenous cereals like maize, sorghum, millet is possible
with modification so as to be a substitute to the foreign
honey lops drinks (Neilson, 1991). Hence this work is on
the production and quality evaluation of honey loops
drinks using local cereals.
Akande et al. 459
Figure 1: Flow Chart for the Production of Honey Loops Drinks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The grains were procured from a local farmer in
Ogbomoso, Oyo State. Figure 1 showed the flow chart for
the production of honey loop. The grains were sorted and
washed. It was then steeped in water for 3days with the
water being change every 24 hours to avoid odour
contamination, and was well rinsed in water. Afterwards,
the cereals were wet milled (made into slurry). The set of
the slurry were sieved using muslin bag of
350micrometer so as to separate the residue from the
filtrate. The slurry was pasteurized for 15min and later
o in terms of appearance, and colour. For flavour, there is
cooled to 50 C. It was then mixed up in proportion with
other additives (honey) using the formulation in table 1
with agitating machine. The samples were labelled as A,
B, C, D, E and F. Samples A, B and C were the control.
Then the samples were stored in the refrigerator for
analysis. Nutritional and chemical analyses of the
samlpes were carried out using the methods of AOAC
(2000). The microbiological analysis was also cried out
using the method in Freizier (2000), while the sensory
analysis was carried out by method described in
Ihekonroye and Ngoddy, (1985),
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the nutritional and chemical composition of
the drinks samples produced were as shown in table 2.
For the ash content, Sample A (0.34); B (0.17); C(0.32);
D( 0.710; E ( 0.35) and F( 0.24) indicate that all the
control samples has lower ash contents with millet
(Sample A having the highest). For all the trial samples,
the ash content was higher bur with maximum values
found with samples D (sample with 30% sorghum; 20%
maize and 15% millet). This same trend is found with
crude fibre, carbohydrate, and protein. The fat content
differs with the highest value (6.40) found with sample E
(25%) sorghum,; 30% Maize; and 10 % millet). While the
remaining samples were with lower values
The total sugar contents of all the samples have values
with the range of 0.31 (in sample B) to 1.53 (in sample F.
The total sugar found was lower in the three trials
samples than the control samples The values in these
categories have the minimum with sample D (0.71) of
30%, sorghum; 20%, maize; and 15%, millet. The total
titratable acidity ranges from Sample E (8.20) to sample
D (11.70). The highest value was found with sample D.
The results of the microbiological analysis of the samples
of honey loops drinks were as presented in table 3. The
total plate count represents the total bacteria count of the
samples The results obtained in all the samples were
below the standard microbial load expected of
1 0
beverages ( 1.0 x10 ) as recorded in Ihekenroye and
3
Ngoddy, (1985). The value (ranging between 1.0 x10 to
3
2.9 x10 in samples B, C and D which place the food
materials safe for human consumption. This implies that
the samples of honey loops drinks produced are safe for
consumption. For the coliform count, which indicate the
extent of faecal contamination in any food samples, the
3
values obtained ranges from between 1.1 10 (sample C)
3
to 3.0 10 (sample E). All the obtained values are below
the recommended values for liquid food products and so
can be seen that the level of the faecal contamination is
at the minimal. For the values obtained for total mould
and yeast count, the values obtained are between the
3 3
range of 1.10 10 in samples D to 3.0 10 in sample E.
The sensory evaluation of the samples showed that
there is no significant difference between all the samples
 Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 460

Table 1: Formulations

A Ordinary 65% millet (control)

B Ordinary 65% maize (control)
C Ordinary 65%sorghum (control)
D 30% sorghum + 20%maize +15%millet
E 25%sorghum + 30%maize + 10%millet
F 20%sorghum + 25%maize + 20%millet

Table 2: Nutritional and Chemical Composition of Honey Loop Drink

Sample Ash Fat Crude Fibre Carbohydrate Protein TS TTA

A 0.39±0.10 4.0±0.10 0.17±0.10 84.44±0.00 11.00±0.10 0.90±0.10 20.00±0.00
B 0.17±0.01 5.0±0.00 0.06±0.11 82.77±0.10 12.00±0.00 8.40±0.10 0.31±0.10
C 0.32±0.00 4.8±0.10 0.21±0.10 82.67±0.10 12.00±0.10 0.86±0.00 9.30±0.01
D 0.71±0.01 5.0±0.00 0.37±0.00 85.07±0.11 9.75±0.00 0.71±0.10 11.70±0.01
E 0.35±0.01 6.4±0.10 0.26±0.10 79.74±0.10 13.25±0.10 1.32±0.11 8.20±0.11
F 2.24±0.10 4.4±0.00 2.06±0.11 77.65±0.00 13.65±0.10 1.53±0.10 10.60±0.01
KEY
A = Ordinary 65% Millet (control)
B = Ordinary 65% Maize (control)
C = Ordinary 65% Sorghum (control) D = 30% Sorghum + 20% Maize +15% Millet
E = 25% Sorghum + 30% Maize + 10% Millet F = 20% Sorghum + 25% Maize + 20% Millet.
TS = Total Sugar
TTA= Total Titratable Acidity

Table 3: Microbiological Composition of Honey Loop drink

Sample Total plate count Total coliform count Total mould/yeast count
A 2.010³ 2.310³ 1.910³
B 1.010³ 2.110³ 2.110³
C 1.010³ 1.210³ 1.010³
D 2.910³ 1.510³ 1.110³
E 2.810³ 3.510³ 3.010³
F 2.610³ 1.510³ 1.910³

KEY
A = Ordinary 65% Millet (control)
B = Ordinary 65% Maize (control)
C = Ordinary 65% Sorghum (control) D = 30% Sorghum + 20% Maize +15% Millet
E = 25% Sorghum + 30% Maize + 10% Millet F = 20% Sorghum + 25% Maize + 20% Millet.

Table 4: Sensory Evaluation of the Sample of Honey Loop Drinks

Parameter Sample Codes

A B C D E F
a a a a a a
Appearance (in bottle) 5.07 6.36 6.43 6.71 6.64 6.57
a a a a a a
Color 5.00 6.07 6.29 6.64 6.29 6.50
b b b a ab ab
Flavour 4.86 4.86 4.29 6.14 5.71 5.71
ab b b ab a ab
Taste 4.71 4.07 3.64 5.50 6.00 5.50
ab b b a a ab
Overall acceptability 5.78 4.86 4.71 6.50 6.50 5.93

KEY
A = Ordinary 65% Millet (control)
B = Ordinary 65% Maize (control)
C = Ordinary 65% Sorghum (control) D = 30% Sorghum + 20% Maize +15% Millet
E = 25% Sorghum + 30% Maize + 10% Millet F = 20% Sorghum + 25% Maize + 20% Millet
Akande et al. 461
significant different between samples A, B, C, and
samples D, E and F. The same trend is observed for
taste, and overall acceptability However, samples D has
the highest mean score this indicates that samples D has
is mostly acceptable in all the quality attributes assessed.
CONCLUSION
From all the analysis carried out sample D was found to
be the best in all. The nutritional combination, the
microbiological analysis and the sensory evaluation
placed it above all the other samples. It can therefore be
concluded that the formulations for sample D which is
30%, Sorghum: 20%, Maize and 15%, Millet be adapted
for the production of honey loop drink.
View publication stats
REFERENCES
A.O.A.C. (2000). Official Method of Analytical Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C
Ihekoronye, A.I. and Ngoddy, P.O. (1985). Integrated Food Science and
Technology for the Tropics; Macmillan London. pp:236-252.
Jones, H.R. (2001). Honey and healing through the ages. Cardiff, UK:
IBRA. pp. 1-4
Nielsen, E.R. (1991). Honey in medicine. VI Conresso Internationale di
Egottologia (Atti). Turin. pp. 415- 419
Pearson, D.C. (1981). The Chemical Analysis of Food. Chemical
Publishing Company Inc., New York
Potter, N.N. and Joseph, H.H. (1995). Food Science. 5th Edition (pg
382-394)
Varnam, A.H. (1994). Beverages: Technology, Chemistry and
Microbiology.
William, C.F. (1995). Food Microbiology Fourth Edition Wikipedia
Encyclopedia Website, 2008.